SO, it has been brought to my attention that rumours are floating around about the next Microsoft console. According to a source (which will be linked at the bottom) the Xbox Loop (as it is codenamed) will contain some form of protection to prevent the use of pre-owned games. Obviously as a customer this is bad news; quite often games are no longer available new in store after a year or so which raises the question: How do I get these elusive games? Of course I can go online to trawl the internet in hopes to find a brand new copy but that can be difficult and some sites can be misleading. So in summary I want to state once more that as a consumer, I am against this.
However, I am not here to talk about myself as a consumer, I am a student at Derby University and I am hoping to delve into the world of developing games. I am here to put forward as much information as I can to try and make some form of rational argument for the protection to hopefully enlighten people on the other side of the games industry, one that is rarely talked about. Like I said, I’m only a student, and I only know what I’ve been informed of in lectures and tutorials, so I can’t say for certain that I am 100% correct and anyone who can correct me is welcome to.
So, without further introduction I shall put forward my first argument. Developers don’t get as much money as everyone thinks. If you love Bioware, Gearbox or any other developers then you should buy your games first hand because although the games you buy in store cost £40 (or $60 for America I believe) developers only see a very small percentage of that. I’ve been told that on average developers receive £1 of that £40 you’ve spent. The rest is split between the publishers, manufacturers, shipping and retailers. You may be sitting there thinking “But wait, they sell millions of copies so that’s still millions of pounds they get!” and while that may be true you have to consider that gets split over the 3 years the game is being made (possibly 6 years if you include designing the game) that is then split (if the employees get royalties) between the 100-300 employees in that company. If you take it that way and look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 that roughly ends up at £24,000 per year per employee, assuming everyone is paid equally. Not so greedy after all, eh?
The next point to raise is that all games that you buy for Xbox might actually end up cheaper if this protection is put in. First of all I want to assume that all businesses are just trying to make the most money possible, next I’m only talking about multi-platform titles, obviously first party titles will be different because there are no other options so they can price games however they want. So, assuming those two things, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that because people can’t buy pre-owned games the companies will get more money overall which means they can afford to reduce their prices. Take Steam for example, they are able to do so many sales simply because no-one can buy the games anywhere else, so they can reduce their prices by up to 75% because they can almost guarantee that people will buy those games. When Garry’s Mod’s price was reduced by 50% in September 2009 they needed a 200% increase in sales to cover the loss they could have made, instead they got an increase in sales of 1074% selling 34,927 copies in the 8-day sale. Of course this is an extreme case but its still a remarkable piece of evidence to put towards the case and since Steam still continues to do weekly sales, we can assume they are making enough money to at least cover themselves.
I hate to flog the Steam horse too much but its such a good example of how Digital Rights Management and the prevention of purchasing pre-owned games helps to increase business. Speaking of DRM my next point is simply the fact that good DRM works. Before Steam, piracy was rampant in the PC market and while Steam hasn’t eradicated piracy (and I believe has even stated that piracy can help provide a competitive market) it has severely dented it. Another point for good quality DRM is the multiplayer access codes which some companies have adopted where multiplayer is a key aspect of the game. This may not prevent people buying pre-owned games but it does make a lot of people think twice and increases the income for the companies involved.
My final point in this pro-protection rant is more related to myself and where I hope this industry will end up. In the current climate of the industry many publishers are unwilling to take risks on new intellectual properties or ideas because of the amount of money they have to put in. If the publishers feel they can’t make a profit then they’d rather invest in another CoD clone. This attitude is suffocating creativity and is the main reason for the sudden Indie up rise over the past 10 years. However, if the developers know that these games have to be bought first hand then they also know that the risks are reduced and that they can gamble on a more interesting concept. The other reason I have for hoping this is handled well and works is that as someone who is considering going Indie I would be more likely to get more money if I were to release a game in a shop.
So there you go, hopefully I’ve put forward a relatively rational argument for why this is a good idea. If you have any thoughts you’re welcome to respond and I’d be happy to hear some feedback or as I mentioned earlier corrections to my information.
Mangarth Out!
Rumours on Anti-used game system:
Sales figures for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2
Sales figures for Garry’s Mod:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/10/08/garry-s-mod-sales-performance-revealed/1
